Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/California Diamond Jubilee half dollar/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

California Diamond Jubilee half dollar edit

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... one of the more obscure U.S. Mint issues. I like that the promoters of the new coins stuck to their guns when told by experts to get a new design, and we have a beautiful coin as a result.Wehwalt (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~

Source review is good.
Nothing jumped out at me on first read-through. I'll wait a few days and see if there's anything on a second reading.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for that second look, Sturm? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On rereading, I'd suggest that the first two paras of the inception section be trimmed and then combined. We've got more information on the Vermont commemorative coins than we honestly need and I'd suggest trimming the bit about the unsuccessful gold dollar proposal. All we really care about is that the California commemorative was added to the existing Vermont commemorative coin bill.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's done, though I left the bit about the gold dollar in because the US has not issued a gold dollar since 1922.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but that's something that only serious numismatists would know. Otherwise looking good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – with a few queries:

His report to the Spanish crown garnered little interest, and it was not until the English seaman Sir Francis Drake touched there in 1579 that the Spanish were moved to settle the area." – The sentence suggests that the area was unsettled; ie, busy, manic, etc... Should this be settle as in "lived" or "moved in to"? If so, should it not read thus: "His report to the Spanish crown garnered little interest, and it was not until the English seaman Sir Francis Drake touched there in 1579 that the Spanish were moved to settle into the area." Or similar?

Changed to "colonize", which I think takes care of your other concerns.

"This was the first time commemorative coin legislation covered more than one issue. An issue of 300,000..." – "issue" and "issue" repetition.
"Numismatic historian Don Taxay averred that this was not done due to the lack of an alternative position to place the motto in." – "not done" sounds wrong to me. I think "omitted" would sound better.
Would the link to "polar bear" fall within WP:OVERLINK?

That's all I have to offer for this interesting little article. Short, but comprehensive and perfectly formed in my opinion. Cassianto ^Talk 19:34, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and support. I've taken your suggestions with the note above.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments:

Under 'Inception,' this sounds a bit strange: "...and the American Revolutionary War independence of Vermont." It seems like "American Revolutionary War" is being used here as an adjective, but it sounds almost like two separate items. Maybe something like 'during' or 'after' could be added there.
Under 'Distribution and collection,' the first part of this sentence should probably be reworded: "At least some half dollars must have left the San Francisco Mint by August 26, 1925..." "At least some" doesn't really make sense. Maybe "at least one" or "one or more" would be more appropriate.

Other than that, everything looks good to me. Once again, your efforts at improving the numismatic coverage here have resulted in the Wikipedia article being probably the best available online source for information about a coin.-RHM22 (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I've done those. And thanks for the kind words. And welcome back!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.